Sure, there is some bayanihan at the level of practical matters. But the mindset when it comes to politics seems to be: follow the herd. There are some independent thinkers, but a true revolution in mind that is necessary has not yet started. There are groups that Joe America has called Filipino 100%ers. Conformity to a thought leader and his followers is expected, like in a church or sect.

You easily get labeled some color or group. Guess that is because in old Filipino culture, you were a follower of this datu or the other. The Spanish priests came and also had their followers. Schools of thought in the Philippines usually freeze up and become rigid repetitions of what their founders might once have had as original ideas, no further development. Could it be that it never was about the truth anyway, anytime – but just about face and power? Because the actions of followers of whatever group often do not match the meaning of words – not only in split-level Christianity:

Those who call themselves Communist rebels are often just extortionist bandits – nothing to do with Che Guevara ideals

Those who call themselves democratic are often just oligarchs and elitists – the system is there to perpetuate their power

Those who call themselves disciplinarians are often out to discipline everybody else, but are not very disciplined themselves

How often is politics in the Philippines NOT about getting things done in a better way, but just about one’s own skin at the expense of everybody else? Zero sum games.

True, Karl. The points then are still the points now. Part of computer performance in mainframes was called thrashing. This is when priority algorithms of the operating system cannot keep up with the number of jobs being processed by the operating system, i.e. elapsed times for job completion are longer or at a standstill.

Manong, the article is so very right. The external push… I don’t know where it can come from. All we can push are ideas… anyway the most significant part is:

Politically, our party-jumping politicians claim ours is a thriving and mature democracy. This is far from the truth. Why do the same prominent names continue to dominate politics? Congress has yet to legislate a constitutional provision to enact a law banning political dynasties. We doubt if this provision will see the light of day. Do we have a truly working democracy? Do we really have an effective two- or multi-party system—with alternative party platforms clothed in sincerity? The country’s political system has become so parochial and expensive that only the economic elite and traditional politicians have an advantage. As our system of politics revolves around an elitist ideology, we can only expect the same elitist leadership.

Socially and culturally, we remain to this day a people sadly divided by tribal and regional ethnicities. In school campuses, regional and linguistic student groupings compete among themselves, and with Greek-sounding fraternities as well. And are not Filipino social and civic groups in many parts of the US as ethnically fractious and disparate as those in the country?

and in the absence of abstract principles that have not been truly transmitted –
except to some like your generation where education still worked, what you hold on to can be:

– the imagined community of one’s ethnolinguistic (tribal) identity or social status group
– a person who is seen as a common point of identification (imagined older brother or elder)
– a religious idea which usually borders on the magical in nature (Pacquiao-style religion)
– an ideology of any sort (fanatical leftists, Santiago-style nationalists, whatever basta meron)
– cynicism or nihilism (the former for thieves and their henchmen, the latter for all sorts of radicals)

Some Filipinos are excellent at abstraction without any connection to reality – like the debates on Poe’s being NBFC at times.
Other Filipinos are excellent at concreteness without any form of abstraction – Mayor Duterte strikes me as that kind of pragmatist.

The tree of abstraction needs to have roots in the soil of concreteness, and that failure of the educational system has many symptoms.

Forgot the so called representatives of the marginalized,the partylists.
Same old dynasties for some;the others are too rich to bother.
But in fairness,the poor almost had their magna carta for the poor,sss pebsion increase,the farmers and fishermen have their agriculture and fisheries modernization.

Like I wrote in the programs article, I want to continue and analyze all 5 programs when those of Binay and Santiago come in.
Next aspect will be to analyze the possible national priorities, that would be an article as well, where are the worst issues.
I must give Santiago credit for making clear proposals on speeding up justice – this of course is no surprise it is her area.

Then an article mapping priorities to programs and looking at who addresses the top priorities best, what is missing etc.
I would like to act like a consultant making an analysis for a boss – the Filipino people – to help make a decision.

Well, it won’t get boring over here in the next three months for sure, the other stuff is outlined below.

No problem… that was the article I meant. McArthur’s role in shaping what later became the AFP is highly significant and your connection to it makes it even better. Bill will be continuing with his point of view on McArthur, an Australian POV, but we will eventually reach a clearer picture of those times together.

The picture of Philippine history – especially the parts that are used as political ammunition – is as yet very truncated and does not yet show “the whole elephant”.